Comments

TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

tacit adj. ...4. Law happening without contract but by operation of law ~ Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (c.1980), page 1447

Unfortunately, we will spend hours bitching, to each other, that there is no such thing as "tacit consent", but not a single moment actually rebutting the presumption. Why? Because we don't really want to give up our citizenship status, we just want to complain about "the duties which it imposes".

This Makes a great deal of sense. For over two-hundred years this Nation has operated under the ruse that the Constitution is in fact the "Law of the Land", the majority, although academically ignorant as I just presume it to be truth and therefore we "tacitly" conceed until someone comes along and begins to point out the errors which exist. Then there are those who simply plod through this life without question, probably much like our ancestors did until a few got tired of how they were being treated by the British Government at the time. I think these men and women wanted to be free of the oppression they were experiancing; it wasn't a military coue, or one man wanting to be Monarch (although John Adams seemed to desire this), they wanted to be free and constructed something they felt others also wanted (except for a few[a minority presumably]).
I think these men were honestly looking to have a free society, but recognized that some order must needs to apply or there would be nothing but chaos and conflict. They unified the separate land masses claimed by such groups as the 13 colonies. From that point forward people must have "Tacitly agreed" to conduct ourselves under those guiding principles.
My question now is "Does this extend legitimacy to the Constitution"? If it does, what needs to be fixed to make it operate in a proper manner as a guiding document?
I have remained committed to the idea of "What can be done to alter the situation and improve upon it". What is the solution?

"State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former [the ploughman] will decide it as well, and often better than the latter [a professor], because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (c.1788)

Remember, Glock27: A CONSTITUTION. In American Law. [is] The written instrument agreed upon by the people [voluntary members] of the Union or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it, and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or officer is null and void.” (Source: Cooley, Const. Lim. 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st (c.1891)], page 259)

As such, it is legitimate; but that's all that it is, and nothing more!

It is not the “supreme law of the land”, it is the supreme law over those who wish to govern!! This is why those individuals wishing to govern, intentionally misinterpret it, illegally amend it, and unlawfully ignore it (when they can get away with it)...they hate the Constitution, (“its only a goddamned piece of paper”), because it has restricted their authority for so long; “any act or ordinance of any such department or officer...in opposition to[it]...is null and void”. They began chipping away at it almost from the moment of its creation. They have used, over and over and over and over again, the glaring error making “all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States...the supreme law of the land”; which explains why they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the so-called Bricker Amendment.

“The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment.” ~ Bricker Amendment by Justin Raimondo

"No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply a right in the first person, not only to make the third person his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a criminal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a "constitution" does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to its validity." ~ Lysander Spooner, excerpted from his letter to [CONGRESSMAN] Thomas F. Baynard

This is why consent, either express, implied or tacit[1], is deemed necessary to derive "just powers[2]" [authority] over a man. Even a professor should be able to see that what Lysander stated is true.

The other thing to consider, Glock27, is whether or not the U.S. Constitution has been successful at protecting our natural rights.

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816)

Again, I use Lysander's common-sense-opinion, on that question, as my own.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." ~ Lysander Spooner

__________________________________________________________________

[1] In the cases of implied or tacit consent, the individual has but to rebut it to take the effect of it away.

Rebut. In pleading and evidence, to defeat, refute, or take away the effect of something. When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces [presents, brings forward, offers, introduces] evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to "rebut it." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 1267 [Bracketed information added]

I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS.

[2] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS.

"I am unable to accept the idea that I should be an obedient subject of a gang of corrupt, unprincipled thugs who pontificate about freedom while enslaving the population." ~ John Pugsley

I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE AN OBEDIENT SUBJECT OF A GANG OF CORRUPT, UNPRINCIPLED THUGS WHO PONTIFICATE ABOUT FREEDOM WHILE ENSLAVING THE POPULATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. MY LAW IS THE LAW OF NATURE.